UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals
Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 40 of 6478. Defendants determined the permit application met most but not all thecriteria set forth in 50 C.F.R. §216.34 and the MMPA for issuance of the permit.79. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(1) requires that the proposed activity be humaneand not present any unnecessary risks to the health and welfare of marinemammals. Defendants found the proposed transport of beluga whales met thisstandard.80. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(2) requires that the proposed activity beconsistent with the restrictions in 50 C.F.R. §216.35, which includes restrictionsrelated to humaneness, a prohibition on importing marine mammals that were“unweaned” or less than eight months of age when taken, and requirements that thepermit applicant possess the necessary qualifications to undertake the proposedactivity. Defendants stated these requirements duplicated other regulations andwould be addressed in the context of those other regulations.81. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(3) requires that activities involving specieslisted under the Endangered Species Act be consistent with that Act. Since belugawhales are not so listed, Defendants found this criterion inapplicable.82. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(4) requires that the proposed activity by itself orin combination with other activities will not likely have a significant adverseimpact on the species or stock. Defendants found this criterion was not met40
Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 41 of 64because Defendants “cannot discount the possibility” that there could be an“undetected” decline in the population of the beluga whales in the Sea of Okhotskand that the live capture of beluga whales for public display “may havecontributed” to the undetected possible decline. Defendants deemed the permitapplication inadequate because it contained no information about the populationtrend of beluga whales found in the Sea of Okhotsk.83. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(5) requires that the permit applicant have theexpertise, facilities, and resources to accomplish the proposed activity. Defendantsfound Georgia Aquarium has the requisite expertise, facilities, and resources.84. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(6) requires that if a live animal is to betransported the permit applicant have qualifications, facilities, and resourcesadequate for the proper care and maintenance of the marine mammal. Defendantsfound Georgia Aquarium meets this standard.85. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(7) requires that the import will not likely resultin the taking of additional marine mammals. Based on language in a 1993Proposed Rule that was never adopted, Defendants found this standard was not metbecause the Russian Federation will not agree to stop issuing permits for the livecapture of beluga whales for public display.41
- Page 1 and 2: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 3 and 4: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 5 and 6: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 7 and 8: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 9 and 10: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 11 and 12: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 13 and 14: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 15 and 16: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 17 and 18: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 19 and 20: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 21 and 22: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 23: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 26 and 27: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 28 and 29: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 30 and 31: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 32 and 33: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 34 and 35: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 36 and 37: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 38 and 39: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 42 and 43: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 44 and 45: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 46 and 47: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 48 and 49: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 50 and 51: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 52 and 53: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 54 and 55: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 56 and 57: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 58 and 59: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 60 and 61: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 62 and 63: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
- Page 64: Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Fi
Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 41 of 64because Defendants “cannot discount the possibility” that there could be an“undetected” decline in the population of the beluga whales in the Sea of Okhotskand that the live capture of beluga whales for public display “may havecontributed” to the undetected possible decline. Defendants deemed the permitapplication inadequate because it contained no information about the populationtrend of beluga whales found in the Sea of Okhotsk.83. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(5) requires that the permit applicant have theexpertise, facilities, and resources to accomplish the proposed activity. Defendantsfound Georgia Aquarium has the requisite expertise, facilities, and resources.84. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(6) requires that if a live animal is to betransported the permit applicant have qualifications, facilities, and resourcesadequate for the proper care and maintenance of the marine mammal. Defendantsfound Georgia Aquarium meets this standard.85. 50 C.F.R. §216.34(a)(7) requires that the import will not likely resultin the taking of additional marine mammals. Based on language in a 1993Proposed Rule that was never adopted, Defendants found this standard was not metbecause the Russian Federation will not agree to stop issuing permits for the livecapture of beluga whales for public display.41
Change language